Re: bind draft issues

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 12:16  PM, Jason Crawford wrote:
>> URLs have properties too.  Think about how DAV:lockdiscovery
>> works in the face of COPY/MOVE,
> I'm not sure I understand what you're refering to, but it is true that
> we protect the URL of a lock.   And it's true that the
> influence of a lock causes there to be a DAV:lockdiscovery property
> shown on the resource, but I'm not sure I'd call that property a "URL
> property".  (It's more complex than that.)

Could you expand on "more complex than that"?


>
>
>>  or DAV:displayname for that matter.
> DAV:displayname is a property of the resource in every way that
> I can think of.

It is my understanding that there are implementations that
permit (or even mandate) that the DAV:displayname property
vary depending on URL.  For instance, imagine if you have two
different bindings to the same resource, say

    http://example.com/foo.html
    http://example.com/bar.html

and display names which are the respective names of the resource,
"foo.html" and "bar.html".  Are you saying that such implementations
would not be compliant with respect to 2518?


>
>> Regarding this issue, I was not suggesting that the problem
>> is that the binding protocol changed the behavior of properties,
>> just that the behavior needs to be fully specified.  Do
>> you feel that 2518 does fully specify the behavior of
>> URL properties?
>
> Hold that thought until we resolve what it is you mean by
> URL properties...

Perhaps "URL properties" isn't the right term, but what is?
In the face of bindings, "URL properties" are those properties
which are (potentially) effected by operations on bindings, where
"resource properties" are not effected by such operations.

-brian
briank@xythos.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 15:28:46 UTC